Legal Education and the National Education Policy 2020

Professional education should not be isolated. The policy's general position is that standalone professional institutions should move towards being multidisciplinary, which for law means law taught alongside other disciplines rather than in a single subject institution.

What the policy says that matters more, indirectly

The regulatory architecture. The policy proposes a single overarching body for higher education with four independent verticals: regulation, accreditation, funding and academic standard setting. If that were implemented for law, the divided jurisdiction of chapter 110 would look quite different. The policy expressly leaves legal and medical education outside part of that scheme, which is itself a point worth making.

The multidisciplinary institution. Large institutions teaching many subjects, with the small single subject college phased out. Applied to law this is an argument against the standalone law college, which is what most MU affiliated law institutions are.

The credit framework and flexibility. A credit based curriculum with choice, and multiple entry and exit with certificates and diplomas at intermediate stages.

Assessment. A move away from a single terminal examination towards continuous, formative and competency based assessment. That is squarely the subject of chapters 340 to 450, and it is the part of the policy most directly relevant to topic 3 of this syllabus.

And a national assessment centre. The policy proposes a common aptitude based entrance testing body, which for law would sit beside the existing entrance tests.

The tensions with the present law of legal education

Multiple entry and exit against rule 13. The Rules of Legal Education 2008 prohibit lateral entry and exit precisely to protect the integrity of a professional qualification. A person cannot be half a lawyer, and a certificate awarded after two years of a law course would either mean nothing or mean something dangerous.

Multidisciplinary institutions against the standalone national law university. The most admired institutions in Indian legal education are single subject universities, and the policy's general direction is against the type.

Flexibility against a prescribed professional curriculum. Schedule II prescribes compulsory papers because a person entering the profession must have covered certain ground. Wide elective choice and a compulsory professional core pull against each other.

And the regulator question. A single higher education regulator and a professional regulator under the Advocates Act cannot both have the last word, and the policy does not resolve it.

How to use this in an answer

Say what the policy is, then what it proposes, then what stands in its way. That structure is worth more than a summary, because the examiner is testing whether the candidate understands that a policy meets an existing legal framework.

Do not overstate its effect on law. As at the time of writing, the Rules of Legal Education 2008 remain the operative instrument, the Advocates Act is unamended in the respects that matter here, and the policy has changed the professional qualification in no respect.

And connect it to topic 3. The policy's assessment proposals are the most usable part for this syllabus, because examination reform is a printed topic and the policy is a recent, citable source on it.

A worked example

A student is asked in an examination whether a law college may now offer a certificate to a student who leaves after two years, since NEP 2020 provides for multiple entry and exit.

The first move is to identify what kind of instrument the policy is. It is a policy approved by the Union Cabinet in July 2020. It creates no rights, imposes no duties and repeals nothing, and it takes effect only through legislation, regulation or institutional decision.

The second move is to find the instrument that actually governs. Legal education is governed by the Rules of Legal Education 2008, made under sections 7(1)(h) and 49(1)(af) of the Advocates Act 1961.

The third is to read the rule. Rule 13 prohibits lateral entry into and exit from a law course.

So the answer is no. A college may not do it, because the operative instrument forbids it and the policy has not changed the operative instrument.

And the fourth move is what earns the marks. State the tension: the policy proposes multiple entry and exit across higher education, rule 13 forbids it for law, the reason for rule 13 is that a professional qualification is not divisible, and the question of which should give way is unresolved.

A candidate who answers only that NEP 2020 permits it has stated a policy as though it were law, which is the single commonest error on this topic.

Quick revision

NEP 2020 was approved in July 2020. It is a policy, not law: it creates no rights and takes effect only through legislation, regulation and institutional decisions.

On law directly: globally competitive legal education adopting best practices and new technologies; offered bilingually, in English and the State language; informed by constitutional values and Indian traditions of justice.

Indirectly and more importantly: a single overarching higher education regulator with four verticals; large multidisciplinary institutions instead of standalone colleges; a credit framework with flexibility and multiple entry and exit; and a shift from terminal examinations to continuous, competency based assessment.

Tensions: multiple entry and exit against rule 13 of the Rules of Legal Education 2008; multidisciplinary institutions against the single subject national law university; elective flexibility against a prescribed professional core; and two regulators with no rule of priority.

Test yourself

1. Is the National Education Policy 2020 law? What follows from your answer? No. It is a statement of Government intention that creates no rights or duties and takes effect only through legislation, regulations and institutional decisions. It follows that a candidate must describe its proposals as proposals and must not state them as the current legal position.

2. State three things the policy says about legal education specifically. That it should be globally competitive and adopt best practices and new technologies; that it should be offered bilingually in English and in the language of the State; and that it should be informed by constitutional values and the history and traditions of Indian justice.

3. Identify a direct conflict between the policy and the Rules of Legal Education 2008. The policy proposes multiple entry and exit in higher education, while rule 13 of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 prohibits lateral entry into and exit from a law course, so that a student may not leave part way with an intermediate qualification.

4. Which part of the policy is most useful for a question on examination reform? Its proposed shift from a single terminal examination to continuous, formative and competency based assessment, which is the same direction as the semester system and internal assessment already in force, and gives a candidate a recent official source for the argument.